Dismissed

Vidya Baridh Tiwari v. the Union of India and Ors.

Patna HC11 Aug 2015CWJC/7585/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an oral order, this Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a departmental punishment order of removal from service for misconduct including desertion and leaving arms unattended. The Court found the departmental inquiry was procedurally sound, charges were proved, and no cogent grounds were raised to interfere with the punishment. The application was accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ application challenging the punishment order is dismissed with no interference with the removal from service.

Vidya Baridh Tiwari Vs the Union of India and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7585 of 1999

¶2

====================================================== Vidya Baridh Tiwari son of Sri Raghubir Prasad Tiwari, resident of village Bagdara, P.s. Vishwa Vidhyalaya Rewa, District Rewa (M.P). .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The Union of India through the Secretary of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2.The Directorate General, CRPF, CGO, Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi3. 3.The Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector, CRPF, Patna-14(Bihar). 4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna-14(Bihar). 5.The Commandant 36^th BN. CRPF, BTC, Howly Barpeta (Assam). .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None. For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay A.S.G.I & Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur C.G.C

¶3

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶4

9 11-08-2015

¶5

No one appears for the petitioner.

¶6

In this writ application the order of punishment

¶7

dated 24.05.1996 as affirmed by the revisional authority and revisional authority in their respective orders dated 28.04.1997 and 28.04.1998, have been called in question.

¶8

From the perusal of the records, it appears that a departmental proceeding against the petitioner was drawn by framing memo of charge dated 02.12.1995:-

¶9

^^vfHk;ksx l a [;k&pdz

¶10

fd ,Q@36 cVkfy;u ds cy l a [;k&910580241 flikgh chch0 frokjh flikgh ds in ij dk;Zjr gksrs gq, cy dk lnL; gksus dh gSfl;r ls dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11A1A ds rgr fnuk a d -9-95 dks ,d voKk] dk;Z lEiknu es a ykijokgh nwljs dnkpkj ;k nqO;Zogkj dh dk;Zokgh dh ftles a mlus

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.7585 of 1999 (9) dt.11-08-2015

¶12

¶13

fnuk a d 4-9-95 dks tc vk W i~l M;wVh ds mijk a r dEiuh Jhuxj ls vklke okil gks jgh Fkh rks fcuk fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ;k vkns'k ds bykgkckn jsyos LVs'ku ls jkLrs es a HkxkSM+k gks x;kA vfHk;ksx l a [;k&nks

¶14

fd mijksDr vof/k ds nkSjku mDr dk;kZy; es a jgrs gq, dfFkr cy l a [;k 910580241 flikgh ch0ch0 frokjh dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e 1949 dh /kkjk 11A1 a A ds rgr ,d voKk] dk;Z lEiknu dh mis{kk] dk;Z lEiknu es a ykijokgh] nwljs dnkpkj ,o a nqO;Zogkj dk nks"kh ik;k x;kA ftles a mlus fnuk a d 4-9-95 dks jkLrs es a bykgkckn jsyos LVs'ku ls fcuk fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh ds iwoZ vuqefr ;k vkns'k ;k lwpuk ds HkxkSM+k gks x;k vkSj fnuk a d 4- 11-95 rd vuqifLFkr jgkA**

¶15

In course of departmental inquiry both the charges were found to be proved by the inquiry officer whereafter the order of punishment after affording opportunity of filing show cause against the findings in the inquiry report was passed by the Commandant, CRPF, Barpeta,

¶16

No procedural infirmity having been specifically pointed out, in the writ application, this Court has examined the materials and on record and would find that the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity in the course of departmental inquiry. Both the charges against the petitioner relating to his remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty as also leaving his arms unattended had not only been found to be proved but

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.7585 of 1999 (9) dt.11-08-2015

¶18

¶19

whatever explanation was given by the petitioner was also duly taken note of by the authorities.

¶20

It is in the revisional order that all the pleas which were raised by the petitioner has been answered as would be also evident from paragraph no. 5 of the revisional order, which for the sake of clarity and convenience is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶21

“5. The points contended by the petitioner in his petition have also been examined, which are discussed as under:-

¶22

a) The petitioner contended that he does no know English and the Enquiry officer has completed enquiry proceeding in English is not acceptable at this belated stage as he had to raise such question during the course of enquiry in case, he was not in a position to understand the language used for recording the statements.

¶23

b) His another plea is that he fell ill immediately on reaching at his home after leaving the train ant took medical treatment and also sent application for leave but it was rejected. The petitioner committed offence by leaving train from Allahabd and what had happened at his home is not concerned with the said offence. Moreover, he managed medical certificate to prove him innocent for the offence committed by him by de-training enroute and to cover the period of his absence from duty. In case, he was ill he should have reported the facts to his superiors/Colleagues so that necessary arrangements for his treatment could have been done. Hence the plea is not correct.

¶24

(c) His another plea that he did not know to whom the appeal was to be preferred is also not tenable. He should know these rules/instructions being a member of the Force. Moreover, his appeal was not rejected by DIGP, CRPF, Patna on the grounds of late submission. It was considered and rejected being on cogent point/material in his appeal.

¶25

(d) His contention that only minor punishment can be imposed u/s 11(1) of CRPF 1949 is also incorrect. It is just mis-interpretation of Rules.

¶26

(e) His another plea that he had handed over his arms and Amn to SI Ramji Chaubey as such this should have been treated as prior permission is not acceptable. It is established from the statements of all the PWs that he left

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.7585 of 1999 (9) dt.11-08-2015

¶28

¶29

his arms/amn without the knowledge of any one. PW-6 found it lying on the berth of the petitioner and handed it over to CHM(CHM), who in turn deposited the same in the Coy Kote being their sole responsibility being a member of the Force.

¶30

(f) His averment that submission of medical certificate immediately when he knew that he was at fault has not been treated sympathetically is also not tenable. If fact, he was not ill. If he was ill, he could not have moved from Allahabad Rly. Station. He should have admitted himself at some nearby CRPF hospital located at nearby GC/Units Allahabad by the help of the personnel of his Coy. Instead he went to his home, Therefore, the individual was much more interested fro going to his home.

¶31

(g) The contention of the petitioner that he was unblemished record service cannot be accepted as punishment awarded is for a serious offence i.e desertion leaving behind Arms/Amn. Etc.

¶32

Therefore, I find that the order or removal from service passed by commandant 36^th Bn, CRPF is in order and needs no interference as the petitioner has not brought out any cogent point against the orders of removal from service. As such his revision petition is rejected being devoid of merit.”

¶33

In view of the above there would be no escape

¶34

from the irresistible conclusion that the charges of misconduct against the petitioner were proved in course of departmental inquiry and as noted above, there was also no procedural infirmity in such inquiry.

¶35

In that view of the matter, this writ application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶36

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶37

Ranjan/U

Vidya Baridh Tiwari v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidya Baridh Tiwari v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashi Nath Mishra Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kashi Nath Mishra Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ghanshyam Jha and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bishwanath Prasad Yadav Vs the M.D.,B.S.Tourism Devp.Corp

Basant Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Digamber Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.